"We Love the Rose Bowl"

May 16, 2012 at 8:43a    by Ramzy Nasrallah    
35 Comments

Comments

hodge's picture

This Rose Bowl love is almost as baffling as Jim Bollman's playcalling.

beserkr29's picture

Maybe it's a generational thing, but the Rose Bowl just doesn't seem all that special.  No more than the other BCS bowls, at least.  The Sugar's been going on for a while, but there's never a controversy over that.  Well, except for Army's snub back in the 1940s.  But other than that, the hype for the Rose seems....overdone.  Especially at the expense of the fans, the teams' chances of winning national titles (WAY more important than the Rose Bowl in terms of national prestige), and of plain fiscal responsibility.  Why Midwestern (Big Ten) schools feel the need to let the rest of the country walk all over them when it comes to this sort of thing is beyond me.  It's like they hate winning or something.

Jdadams01's picture

This is the stupidest thing in the history of the Big Ten. I'm embarrassed of our commissioner and athletic directors. No thought went to the players, fans, alumni, and staff. Home sites would be the best choice for the millions of people who support these teams. THIS is why the Big Ten will never be the dominant league in college football again. This is the turning point.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

I agree, completely.
Until someone can actually make the other case from a sensible business perspective, I have to suspect that Wetzel is right - the Big Ten powers-that-be are acting based on irrational, or worse, motives.
When Woody said of the Big Ten powers-that-be in 1961, "but I respect their integrity, if not their intelligence," that stupidity was NOTHING compared to this. At least then, those who voted to deny Ohio State the opportunity to play in the Rose Bowl decided based on a clear, rational philosophy of traditional (English) amateurism, etc., as anachronistic as it was (even in 1961). In other words, their conclusions followed their premises. If Woody had said to them, "that was a stupid business decision," they would have responded that it most certainly was NOT a business decision.
In contrast, today's Big Ten clowns actually believe they are making the best business decision, which makes them seem especially stupid. Please explain to me what data they were looking at, their rationales, etc., because I get the sense that they're a bunch of mental-deficients. In that sense, they're even worse than Woody's nemeses because you can't say they have any integrity if they can't make a logical, coherent argument supporting their decision; thus lacking intelligence AND integrity.
Maybe someone else can?

btalbert25's picture

Wow, what a bunch of morons.  I can't imagine a kickback from the Rosebowl comittee would be incentive enough for the powers that be in the B1G to take this stance.  Maybe the bribe was too big for any one man to turn down.  
No way they are clinging to tradition here, and if they are then the B1G deserves the reputation it has. 

Kurt's picture

A playoff happening in the first place was thought to be absolutely impossible.  That's - incredibly - been debunked, so let's hope that modifying whatever system is decided upon will also be possible down the road.

Johnny Ginter's picture

i'm furious about this, because it's not just an end around a great idea to prop up a dead system, but because it's a boldfaced, "ha ha go to hell" F U to fans that also happens to be an end around a great idea to prop up a dead system

joel121270's picture

I'm with you on this...makes no sense and I thinkl Wetzel hit it right in his column when he said the teams from the SW and SE are just sitting back now and probably think WOW.
Sure would have loved the chance to have those pussies come here in late Nov early Dec for a playoff game and see how that would of went for em.

OSUBias's picture

I keep hoping there is some secret long game strategy that is going to reveal itself that will make this make sense. But at this point I can't see how any result makes it worth all of the leverage the B10 is giving up, and all of the respectability they're losing in the process.
Just when I think you can't get any dumber, you go and do something like this...(unfortunately I think I'm going to be waiting forever to get to the next line)

Slider...you stink

Bucksfan's picture

The Rose Bowl IS awesome.  But, it's not awesome to everyone.  Not 5 minutes after beating Oregon in the Rose Bowl, John Saunders asked Tressel if they were going to be aiming higher in 2011.  It pissed me off to hear him ask that, but the Rose Bowl apparently doesn't mean anything standing on the 50 yard line after a game played between the Big 10 and Pac-10 champs.

yrro's picture

It's awesome to the blue hairs who pay for stadium additions, and who don't want to sit in the snow to watch playoff games, is what I'd bet.

OSUBias's picture

Not as awesome as national championships. It's just another non championship bowl game at this point, just with a longer history of being more important than it is now.

Slider...you stink

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

As long as people like Les Wexner enjoy the Rose Bowl, it really doesn't matter what our opinions are. We're suckers who will still watch anything. People like Les are the "market makers", and most of them still enjoy the old bowl structure.
Most uber-successful people are way too busy to give a damn about playoffs and things like that.  But many enjoy their winter break trips with their family to whatever bowl game the Buckeyes are playing in, and there's no better destination for a family winter trip than Pasadena. Take that away from these people, and their booster money and alumni dues will slowly decrease.

Steve Earle Bruce Springsteen's picture

To paraphrase Jimmy McNulty, I wonder what it's like to play in a real football conference.

The North remembers.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Thing is, the traditional bowl structure and BT/P12 Rose Bowl arrangement was already disrupted and will be especially long gong under the "I love the Rose Bowl" playoff format. 
I took a quick look at how the Rose Bowl would have functioned under a bowl-based 4-team playoff over the last 13 years (BCS era). First, I'm assuming that the 3rd and 4th ranked teams will play in the "home" bowls of the 1st and 2nd ranked teams because, otherwise, the assumption is that the Rose Bowl would be an annual or rotational semifinal site, which would obliterate the traditional Rose Bowl arrangement even more than what I describe below . . . 
Based on final BCS rankings, here's how the blessed Rose Bowl would have played out:
1998: #4 Ohio State v. 1 Tennessee in the Sugar Bowl semifinal (instead of against TAM). Wisky still would have played UCLA in the Rose Bowl.
1999: No BT or P10 teams in the top 4; Rose Bowl not affected.
2000: #4 Washington would have played #1 Oklahoma in, what, the Fiesta Bowl?
2001: #4 Oregon would have played #1 Miami in the Orange Bowl?
2002: #2 Ohio State plays #3 UGA in the Rose Bowl; #4 USC plays #1 Miami in the Orange Bowl.
2003: #3 USC plays #2 LSU in the Sugar Bowl; #4 Michigan plays #1 Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.
2004: #1 USC plays #4 Texas.
2005: #1 USC plays #4 Ohio State. Voila, we finally have a "granddaddy of them all" matchup!
2006: #1 Ohio State plays #4 LSU in the Rose Bowl; #3 Michigan plays #2 FLA in the Sugar Bowl; #5 USC goes to the some other bowl.
2007: #1 Ohio State plays #4 Oklahoma in the Rose Bowl.
2008: No BT/P10 teams in the top 4.
2009: No Bt/P10 teams in the top 4.
2010: #2 Oregon plays #3 TCU in the Rose Bowl; #4 Stanford plays #1 Auburn in the Sugar Bowl.
2011: #4 Stanford plays #1 LSU in Sugar. P10 champ #5 Oregon goes elsewhere.
**Note: it's also possible that the BT/P12 will try to gerrymander the thing so that if Ohio State is #1 and Oregon is #2, they'll play eachother in the semis in the Rose Bowl, which is really self-defeating but what'ya expect? Then, when Ohio State is #3 and Oregon is #4, they'll demand "That's the Rose Bowl semifinal!" and the SEC will say, "ugh, not so fast."

NW Buckeye's picture

The only thing amazing about this is that people are actually surprised by it.  As soon as the 4 team playoff was floated the writing was on the wall that existing bowls would somehow be included.  The idea of on campus games appeals to most of us, but there is no way that was going to fly with any schools who really do not want to play in the northern tier for a playoff game in Dec or Jan.  Heck, half the schools located there would rather have a higher probability of temperate weather than on campus games.  When you throw in all the schools in the south, there is no way the on campus proposal would fly.  Heck all the southern schools already enjoy somewhat of a home field advantage in most of the bowls anyway - why on earth would they be willing to part with that? 
The B1G and PacXX are doing what little they can to preserve what they see as a win win for both of them.  At least if the Rose Bowl is involved it does provide a home field for the PacXX team - naturally all of them want to preserve that.  And, like it or not, for some reason, the bigwigs in the B1G actually like the annual trek west.  I can't figure it out, I hate it - and I live on the west coast.  But, them fighting for the Rose Bowl will probably be the only thing that guarantees the Rose will continue be tied into the playoff system and feature the B1G and PacXX. 
And, for all of you clamoring for on campus games, be patient.  It is only a matter of time before the 4 team model is expanded.  There are so many different factions involved: conference champs only, ranked teams only, hybrid system, on campus games, etc. that it will quickly evolve to satisfy most of the naysayers concerns.  I really think you will have a 16 team format within 10 years, with the first 8 games on campus (southern schools will demand that they do not have to travel north for those games, but it will happen anyway).  All major conference champs will be included (with the highest ranked 8 champs hosting the first round), with at large bids given the the next highest ranked eligible teams.  The quarter and semi finals will incorporate existing bowls.  Losers in the first round will be eligible to play in one more bowl.  The final will rotate between the major bowls just like it does now. 
For what it is worth, I hate the idea of an expanded playoff system.  But, it will happen, and I won't be surprised when it does.  Just like I am not surprised that the B1G and PacXX are trying to maintain their relationship with the Rose Bowl. 

Jdadams01's picture

NO northern team would give up a home game in the playoffs just to play in Warner weather. None. That's a great advantage. 
And yes the playoff system will be changed or expanded in the future. But if the Big Ten is unwilling to fight for these things now, why will they in ten years? The only reason Delaney is doing an about face on the playoff is because the SEC got both teams in the national championship game this year. Not because of the fans or players, but because something needs to be done about the SECs dominance. But he's going about it the wrong way.

NW Buckeye's picture

Did you read the comments of the AD's and presidents?  They said basically that.  They still use traveling to the warmer climates for bowl games as a "reward" for players, staff, etc.  They have basically given up the fight for home field advantage in favor of playing in the bowls.  I do not agree with them but that is the way it is.  They know that the on campus format in a 4 team field will not garnish enough support from all the schools, so they are choosing to fight the "let's keep our bowl battle" because they know they can win that one.  That said, I really do believe that when the field expands the "on campus" format will again be on the table.  Their thinking is most likely along the lines of fight the battles you can win when you can win them.  So it is not out of the question that they would champion the on campus format if and when it expands.  Just don't expect any of the midwest schools to be pushing for on campus games during the Christmas/New Years Holidays.  Expanding the field necessitates earlier games that will be more accepted by general populations in the midwest and elsewhere.  Not saying that is right, just an observation.
And, attacking the SEC's dominance (as you stated) has more to do with what the B1G puts on the field, not so much what field they play on.  Recent and future hires in the B1G at the coaching level (both HC's and AC's) will have much more to do with that. 

Jdadams01's picture

1. Did you read the comments of the AD's and presidents?  They said basically that.  They still use traveling to the warmer climates for bowl games as a "reward" for players, staff, etc. - I did. And every word they say is wrong/fabricated. AD's and presidents aren't stupid and know what an advantage a home game in 10 degree weather would be over a team from Florida, Texas, etc. Every player/coach/fan knows this. But AD's and presidents aren't going to say it publicly now that they've thrown their weight behind the Rose Bowl. For them to use the "reward" excuse is embarrassing and ridiculous. My comment that no Northern team would give up that home game was in reference to your statement: "Heck, half the schools located there would rather have a higher probability of temperate weather than on campus games." No TEAM (coaches, players, staff) would give up a home game in their familiar weather for a warm weather game in another team's backyard. That's just not an accurate statement.
2. And, attacking the SEC's dominance (as you stated) has more to do with what the B1G puts on the field, not so much what field they play on.  Recent and future hires in the B1G at the coaching level (both HC's and AC's) will have much more to do with that. - Everything you say here is true. But to repeat, the only reason Delaney has done an about face on playoffs is because the BCS is so biased toward the SEC now. Their string of titles has made the playing field uneven. When the SEC West Division runner up gets in the national championship game to face the SEC West Division champ over every other conference champ, the Big Ten doesn't even get a chance to attack the SEC's dominance with what it puts on the field. No one does. This is the only reason Delaney wants a playoff now. Because if the SEC can dictate the championship participants so easily, the BCS is no longer beneficial to the Big Ten. So he's looking elsewhere. His comments about "that team" (Bama) said it plain as day. People need to realize that Delaney does not take into account what is good for the fans/players/coaches. He only considers the Presidents and occasionally the AD's. It's not as if Delaney suddenly had an epiphany and wants to give the fans what they want. The current system just wasn't benefitting him as much anymore. So the talk about being confident that campus games will be included shortly is wishful thinking. If they don't do it now, when it is their best chance/have their best reasons, why would they do it in the future? And agree with what is said below about how once they agree on terms, this will be set for at least 10 years. Another 10 years of southern dominance will permanently shift things to the SEC.

NW Buckeye's picture

JD, I understand where you are coming from, and I agree with your feelings.  However, the administrators who make the decisions are still pushing the bowl scene for the reasons they stated - those are not my opinions they are theirs.  And, until they start thinking like you and me, they will be happy to trade on campus games for bowl games.  What we really should do as fans is not show up to the bowls - not even watch them.  But, are you willing to make that commitment?  Until the admin's are actually hit hard in the pocket books they will continue to make decisions that make us all scratch our heads - and, can you really blame them?  They think they are protecting the golden goose (Rose Bowl) even though many think they are throwing the baby out in the bath water.  My point is that given their history, why are any of us actually surprised by their musings? 
I also still think there may be more to it than the simplicity that you and I would like to attach.  The B1G knew they had a snowball's chance in hell in convincing the rest of the NCAA for on campus semi's.  So the tact they are taking is to preserve their relationship with the Rose.  Fight the battle of on campus games when they think they have a better chance of success. What is most amusing is that the B1G is taking the heat for abandoning the idea of on campus games while they were the only ones championing it in the first place.  Most of our ire should be directed at the rest of the NCAA that really killed the idea before it could gain any momentum.  Much of that probably does have to do with the SEC throwing their weight around, but that is something we may have to live with until the B1G and PacXX and others regain enough clout to actually effect change.  And, that day will come. 

Run_Fido_Run's picture

That doesn't add up to me, sorry - that BT administrators wanted on campus semis, but "knew they had a snowball's chance in hell of convinving the rest of the NCAA," so they decided on "still pushing the bowl scene for the reasons they stated." If they had to retreat from their hill, why then climb on the enemy's hill (this is metaphor) and help them to fire down on the hill they just abandoned? What's the calculated benefit in such a cynical posturing?
As for the Rose Bowl, this "golden goose" was already flying to coop every few years under the BCS system and with a four team playoff that girl will be spending more time in other barns than in BT/P12 barns - so what golden goose are they preserving?   

NW Buckeye's picture

Run, I'm sorry it doesn't add up for you, but that is what the article states.  We do know that the B1G had openly considered on campus semis more than any other conference.  At the latest meeting it all fell apart.  This is what the MSU AD Hollis said: "For us it's criticasl to keep the Rose Bowl in the equation".  The article goes on to state that it "is so critical that they're willing to make business decisions based on emotion, willing to give up on competitive advantages, logistical ease and monetary benefits."  Tom Osborne went on to say "It would be a competitive advantage to have semifinal games at home fields ... but the bowls have been good to us."  Hollis also stated that" from the kids' perspective, the bowl experience is the one thing they want to keep."  Even Gene Smith added "There is a part of me that wants to play a team from the Southwest or the Southeast in five-degree weather, But is it really right for the game?" 
If that does not sound like the admin's giving up the fight for on campus games to protect the Rose Bowl, I don't know what does. That does not make it right, but it is what is happening.  It is blatantly giving up any idea of on campus games in a 4 team format because the overall 4 team format still has the bowls deeply involved.  However, those views are based solely on a 4 team playoff.  When the field expands to 8 or 16, and it surely will, the only pathway to it will be with on campus/regional games.  And the best way for the fans to force the expansion sooner than later is to boycott the bowls (don't go or watch on TV).  Are you willing to do that?

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Well, no, I don't buy that they were for it before they were against it. More like Delany - who actually has brains - is for it, but was outvoted. Osborn was always against it, etc.
I'm not going to boycott a Buckeye bowl game, but the clownishness of this thing will probably temper my enthusiasm. The direction they're headed - given that what they want cannot exist in the format they propose - you could argue that some of these bowls will boycott themselves.     

RedStorm45's picture

So now the big ten doesn't like the idea of cold weather home "playoff" games on campus...but wants a bowl (or bowls) in NYC in January...can we fire these idiots?

btalbert25's picture

I'm actually extremely surprised there aren't more pepole on here defending the Rose Bowl.  I personally think bowls mean little in modern age of college football.  When there are about 40 bowl games, they kind of lose their "special" feel.  Even the big ones.  I'm still surprised though.  More than any other conference or region B1G country really clings to the old tradtions and hates the idea that something like the Rose Bowl just doesn't mean that much anymore.  I'm sure Delaney and company will sell how important the Bowl still is and a lot of fans will buy into it, so it won't rock the boat as much as it should. 
With a national title game (ridiculous as this one has been)  the bowl games are a consolation.  So it's no shock that people would ask if sights would be higher next year when a team wins a BCS bowls.  BCS bowls or any bowl that is not the BCS title game are consolation prizes, even the old Rose Bowl. 
I just wish the B1G and college football in general would realize these aren't the old days where your bowl game was your title game.  College football is a national sport now, not a regional one.  The Rose Bowl isn't the goal anymore, it's a nice consolation if you fall short of expectations. 
 

Run_Fido_Run's picture

I'd argue, we are defending the Rose Bowl.
Early December home-field semifinals better protects the traditional arrangement than a four team playoff in which the Rose Bowl is utilized as a semifinal or championship game site. See my lengthy breakdown above.
Apparently, it's our own dinosaurs who aren't defending the Rose Bowl. The idea that 1970s Rose Bowl could be grafted fused into 2020s playoffs is not defending the Rose Bowl in reality; it is defending a phantasy. Maybe they secretly hate the Rose Bowl. As we know, fine line between love and hate.

BuckeyeNation's picture

We as fans need to collectively boycott any & all southern playoff/bowl games. I know we are all diehard Buckeyes and want to be there to support our team and the B1G but unfortunately the only method of speaking to these morons is to hit them where it hurts... their wallets! If we don't they're never listen and in turn other teams will never come to us!
 

NC_Buckeye's picture

Agreed. And what sucks the worst is that once this gets set in motion, it's going to be very difficult to get all the players involved to reverse course. It will literally be a done deal for at least a decade or more.

NC_Buckeye's picture

I don't know about the rest of you but going to a bowl game is a HUGE expense for me... something I can only afford to do about once or twice a decade. And the biggest reason for that is that every little thing in a bowl location is designed to gouge the attendee for as much as they can get. Hotels, food, tickets, etc. -- it blows my mind what they charge for stuff. Wetzel even did a column about 2 weeks ago about how the host vendors are gouging the universities involved as well (which explains how many schools are ending up in the red from bowl appearances).
For my part, I'll either go see the Buckeyes in the semi-final or in the NCG but NEVER both. And then you won't see my butt at a bowl for at least seven years. If they would have had semi-finals on campus, I would have been able to do both if we had found ourselves in that posiition.
If Smith or Gee make it down to Raleigh for an alumni club event this year -- I'm going to make sure they know I think this is bullshit. With the economy like it is, you'd think they would be a little more sensitive to the fanbase.

William's picture

I don't know about Smith or Gee ever making it down, but I do believe that Archie Griffin has visited the Pinehurst Alumni Club on several occasions, then again it was probably easy to lure him their with the promise of world class golf.

Kurt's picture

Just email them, it can't hurt.  I sent a message to Mr. Smith yesterday.  His presumably automated system responded: Thanks for your comments,, gene.

Pam's picture

I wrote to Gene Smith once and received a handwritten note in return.  They get thousands of emails compared to the number of actual letters. IMO, the letter gets more attention.

RedStorm45's picture

The Big 10 went 1-7 in the Rose Bowl the last 10 years...but NOW they suddenly want to emphasize its importance.  Give me a break.
Honestly, who cares? A lot of years the top 2 teams don't have a big ten or pac-12 team so it's not really affected.  What the **** is the big deal? They want to protect some now meaningless bowl played on pac-12 turf? Outside of playing for a title the bowls are just extra games to get more money.  There's no "tradition."

ShowThemOhiosHere's picture

Since the BCS began, the Rose Bowl has become a consolation prize, except for 2001 and 2005 when it was the designated national title game.  But definitely since the advent of the standalone national championship game in 2006, the Rose Bowl has been a matchup between two great teams, but two teams that fell short of the ultimate goal.  5 times in 14 seasons in the BCS era, the Rose Bowl ended up not being a B1G/PAC 12 matchup anyway. 
The Rose Bowl is a consolation prize and isn't always B1G/PAC 12 anyway, so what's the damn point in trying to protect it?  Tradition is already broken - it's not like it matters to what degree, it has been broken.  What is it going to become, anyway?  Semifinal/final rotating host? 
I tend to think that people sometimes exaggerate the advantage a northern team would have over a southern team from cold weather.  However, I do remember that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for many, many years were 0 for a lot all-time in games where the temperature was 40-something or less.  There may be some kind of advantage there, and we'd be fools not to take advantage.  And it's not such a big advantage that people would be able to make excuses for an SEC team losing when coming up north. 

Class of 2010.

buckeyedude's picture

I do not like Wetzel in the least, but with this article, he is 100% correct. Delany and the B1G presidents don't look all that smart on "preserving the Rose Bowl" issue.
The ultimate goal of any team, if you would ask them, would be to win a national championship, not the Rose Bowl.
I think there is something shady($) going on with these B1G presidents and Delany that they defend the indefensible.